Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation - December 2011

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


NEIGHBORHOOD ASSISTANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA v. NATIONAL MARKETING SOURCE, LLC
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (FT. LAUDERDALE)
0:11-CV-62438-WPD
FILED: 11/14/2011

The defamation claim in this matter arises because of the deceptive nature of the advertisements and the alleged misleading purposes of the Defendant’s websites, which is to lure consumers into paying for services otherwise offered for free by the Plaintiff.
NACA, the Plaintiff in the case, is a non-profit corporation providing loan modification and related mortgage assistance services to homeowners. The Defendant is allegedly using the “NACA” name in Internet advertisements that drive prospective customers of the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s websites. The Defendant then charges the consumers for services offered for free on the NACA website.

The Plaintiff alleges counterfeiting, service mark infringements, unfair competition, false designation of origin, false representation and advertising, and deceptive and unfair trade practices. Plaintiff requests to enjoin the Defendant from registering or using infringing marks, an award of statutory and treble damages, all costs and expenses including attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1536.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. November 2011

Defamation Lawyer Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


DAVINCI VIRTUAL v. REGUS MANAGEMENT GROUP
DISTRICT OF UTAH
2:11-CV-00989
FILED: 10/25/2011

Monitoring your employees’ communications on the web will help avoid this type of a claim for defamation.

Both the Plaintiff and Defendant are competitors selling virtual office solutions. Davinci alleges that Regus has claimed it is affiliated with Davinci and, in fact, purchased the Davinci Virtual, LLC business. Plaintiff claims these statements are false and defamatory.

The Plaintiff alleges federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, intentional interference with current/potential economic relations, commercial disparagement/injurious falsehood and unfair practices. Prayer for relief requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief from infringing use, statutory and civil damages, punitive and treble damages, corrective advertising, all costs and expenses including attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1530.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. October 2011

Defamation Lawyer Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


DEER CREEK CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. v. NORTHWEST REGISTERED AGENT, LLC, ET AL.
DISTRICT OF MONTANA (HELENA)
6:11-CV-00054
FILED: 9/27/2011

The misuse of intellectual property of others is an important issue that seems to be a recurring theme. Make sure that you have the rights to use the property of third parties before doing so.
Plaintiff’s business consists primarily of serving as a registered agent for closely-held Montana companies. The Defendants are alleged to be using various intellectual properties including trademarks of the Plaintiff, and in so doing are liable according to the Plaintiff for business libel and business defamation.

The Plaintiff alleges infringement/disparagement of marks, dilution by blurring/tarnishment, cyberpiracy, business libel/defamation and unlawful dilution. Plaintiff’s prayer for relief requests declaratory judgment, permanent injunctive relief from infringing use, treble and statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs and such other and further relief from the Court as may be just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1526.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. September 2011.

Defamation Lawyer Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, L.P. v. RICK SHOOP
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (DALLAS)
3:11-CV-01922
FILED: 8/5/2011

Make sure that your company is very active in monitoring your online and offline reputation. Sometimes getting “Google Alerts” just isn’t enough to keep you abreast as to the latest developments.
Advocare is the direct sales company that sells nutritional, sports performance and weight management products under its own name. Shoop is alleged to be carrying on an extensive campaign of defamation including claims that the Plaintiff is a “scam” and “run by crooks”.

The Defendant is accused of commercial disparagement and defamation, tortious interference with contractual relationships, trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, federal trademark dilution, cybersquatting, and injury to business reputation. The Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, transfer of the infringing domain name, statutory damages, actual damages, treble damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and other further relief which may be justly entitled. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1522.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. August 2011.

Defamation Lawyer Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

LINDA P. SCHACHT v. BRUCE CARUTHERS and BROOKE YOOLE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE (NASHVILLE)
3:11-CV-00699
FILED: 7/22/11

The bottom line is that you have to maintain possession and control of your domain names and websites. There is no reason for a web developer to have administrative access and control of your domain names. If the Plaintiff had an off premises back-up of the site’s content then the domain name, if under her control, could have been pointed to a new website and this problem would have been nipped in the bud.
The Plaintiff is the elderly widow of world renowned artist Mike Schacht and has previously held high profile positions in politics and publishing. The Defendant is a web developer and got into a dispute with the Plaintiff. When the Plaintiff allegedly failed to make a payment the web developer removed the content from one of the websites and reported that it had been “shut down for non-payment”.

Schacht alleges cybersquatting, violation of statutory right to publicity, breach of Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, libel, false light invasion of privacy, outrageous conduct, fraud, conversion/embezzlement, and intentional interference with existing and prospective business relationships. The prayer for relief requests an award of temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, exemplary damages, punitive damages, treble damages, statutory damages, transfer of the infringing domain names, and such further relief the court deems appropriate. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1510.


HARSCO CORPORATION v. NOVETAS SOLUTIONS, LLC
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (HARRISBURG)
1:11-CV-01355
FILED: 7/21/2011

Make sure that you have Google alerts set up so you will know whenever your product is being mentioned online.
The Plaintiff and Defendant are both in the business of manufacturing and selling glass abrasives used for blast cleaning and preparation of surfaces. The Defendant is alleged to be carrying out an advertising campaign which includes false and misleading claims placing into question the safety of the Plaintiff’s products under EPA guidelines.

The Defendant is accused of unfair competition, false advertising, product disparagement, tortious interference with contract, and interference with prospective business relationships. The Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an accounting of profits, actual damages, corrective advertising, deactivation of all Defendant websites, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1511.


ARDIS HEALTH, LLC, ET AL. v. ASHLEIGH NANKIVELL
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (FOLEY SQUARE)
1:11-CV-05013
FILED: 7/21/2011

Former employees can launch very bad attacks, and sometimes with impunity, against your business. Be very careful when discharging employees. It is always preferable to have a signed agreement with a severance package or a confidentiality and non-disparagement provision in an employment contract.
Plaintiffs are a group of closely affiliated online marketing companies that develop and market a variety of herbal products online. Defendant is a former employee and she claimed on Facebook that the Plaintiff was “raping” customers with “fake diet patches”.

The lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, breach of contract, conversion/civil theft, breach of duty of loyalty, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and defamation. The Plaintiff requests the court award extensive permanent injunctive relief as well as actual damages, compensatory damages, and costs and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1512.


COSMETIC WARRIORS LIMITED v. ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY CARE: MEDICAL, COSMETIC, AND SURGERY, P.A., ET AL.
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
0:11-CV-02023
FILED: 7/21/2011

This is an interesting twist on defamation. If you use a competitor’s name, and the public criticizes you, but it appears to be criticism of your competitor, then according to this lawsuit you are liable for defamation. It will be interesting to see how this case pans out.

The Plaintiff is a premiere supplier of cosmetic, bath, and beauty products. The Defendants are a competitor. The Defendants launched a product with a very similar name to the Plaintiff’s product and numerous reviews appeared online criticizing the Defendants’ product. Unfortunately, the public perceived the criticism of the Defendants’ product as that of the Plaintiff’s product.

The Plaintiff alleges trademark infringement, unfair competition, deceptive trade practices, and false advertising. The lawsuit includes requests for permanent injunctive relief, actual damages, an accounting of profits, statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees with interest. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1513.


FUSION ENERGY, LLC and WILLIAM SCOTT COURT v. BREITLING OIL AND GAS COMPANY and CHRISTOPHER FAULKNER
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (DALLAS)
3:11-CV-01558
FILED: 7/11/2011

Obviously the Defendants are competitors of the Plaintiffs and this is the type of defamation, if true, that is not only damaging to the Plaintiffs but also rewarding to the Defendants. At least until the lawsuit comes.

Fusion Energy is an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company. The Defendants are alleged to have begun a smear campaign to deceive potential customers, disparage the Plaintiffs’ business and gain an unfair competitive advantage. The Defendants are alleged to have acquired domain names that include the Plaintiffs’ names, launched websites and blogs that contained extensive defamatory, false and malicious information, including claims that Fusion Energy is ripping off the public and is operated by criminals and frauds.

The lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, false designation of origin, cybersquatting, unfair competition, business disparagement, and injury to trademark and trade name. Relief requested includes preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, transfer of the infringing domain names, statutory damages, actual damages, consequential damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, enhanced damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1514.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. July 2011.

Defamation Lawyer Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


BLUEMILE, INC. v. YOURCOLO, LLC
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO (COLUMBUS)
2:11-CV-00497
FILED: 6/09/2011

The Defendant is alleged to have acquired the “.net” domain name of the Plaintiff and launched a website that contained defamatory comments about its competitor. A “.net” website is likely to come up high in the results when its competitor is searched and this type of attack is particularly effective. Another good reason, of course, to buy up all of the key domain names to protect your business.
Bluemile is engaged in the business of selling Internet technology services. Defendant sells similar services. Defendant is alleged to have purchased a similar domain name and then published extensive defamatory and disparaging comments on the website similar to the Plaintiff’s targeted at the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff alleges cyberpiracy, trade libel, defamation and interference with business. Relief requested includes preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, turnover of the infringing domain name to the Plaintiff, actual damages, costs and fees. Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report Cross-Reference Number 1502.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Intenet Law on Defamation. June 2011.

Defamation Lawyer Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


MPS ENTERTAINMENT, LLC v. ROBERT M FLETCHER and FRANK SORRENTINO
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (MIAMI)
1:11-CV-21765
FILED: 5/16/2011

This is more of a trademark infringement case than a defamation matter. Keep in mind that there are plenty of state laws that prohibit the use of the name or image of a third party for commercial purposes and even if there is no trademark held by someone in their own name you can violate other laws that prohibit the use of the name and likeness of third parties if you are not careful. Of course, there are constitutionally protected bases for using such information in certain contexts and the analysis can get a little involved and complex.

MPS is in the business of developing, marketing and distributing goods and services under the trademark “The Situation”. It is a limited liability company owned by one of the stars of the “Jersey Shore” TV show. The Defendant owns a website that is allegedly using “The Situation” and related images of the “Jersey Shore” TV star. The Plaintiff alleges that it is being defamed because of the Defendant’s website falsely purporting or suggesting an affiliation with the Plaintiff.

The Defendants are accused of trademark infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin, deceptive, false, and misleading advertising, common law trademark infringement, common law injury to business reputation, and unauthorized publication of name and likeness. Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, actual damages, an accounting of profits, destruction of all infringing materials in the Defendants’ possession, treble damages, statutory damages, and costs and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1496.


SUNGHOON HONG v. TRUDEF RESEARCH, INC., ET AL.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN DIEGO)
3:11-CV-01030
FILED: 5/11/2011

This case is a perfect example of why you should not make any comments about employees or former employees that are derogatory, whether true or false. If you are contacted about a former employee the best guidance is to simply confirm dates of employment and make no further comments about the basis for dismissal or termination or your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the work of the individual.

The Plaintiff is an individual resident of San Diego County, California. The Defendant is a California corporation in the business of developing and marketing video separation and enhancement technology. An employee of the Defendant is alleged to have claimed that the Plaintiff embezzled $200,000, ran away to Korea, admitted the criminality and begged for forgiveness. All of these claims are false and defamatory according to the Plaintiff.

The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to pay all wages upon termination, slander per se, misappropriation of trade secrets, conversion, breach of bailment agreement, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and unfair competition. Plaintiff requests a judgment against the Defendants which include an accounting of profits, compensatory damages, all applicable Labor Code penalties, punitive and exemplary damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1497.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. May 2011.

Defamation Lawyer Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


BLACK DAWG SEALCOAT, LLC and BLACK DAWG FRANCHISE GROUP, LLC v. AMERISEAL SEALCOATING and ANDREW WRIGHT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (CONCORD)
1:11-CV-00187
FILED: 4/18/2011

The interesting thing about this case is that an executive of the Defendant was sued individually because the Plaintiff believes he actually committed some of the acts complained of. Not only can an individual who took a specific action be personally and individually liable but the executives of a company who are directing or managing this type of alleged unlawful activity can also be held personally liable. The idea that a corporation provides protection against these types of claims is an urban legend. Don’t think that all because you are a corporation that you can’t be sued and held responsible individually.
Plaintiffs and Defendants are competitors in the business of “seal coating driveways and parking lots”. The Defendants are alleged to have placed negative, phony reviews about the Plaintiff on the Internet that are defamatory in nature.

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Anti-Cyberpiracy Consumer Protection Act, federal unfair competition, unfair and deceptive acts and practices, and common law defamation. Black Dawg request immediate and permanent injunctive relief, transfer of the infringing domain names, disgorgement of profits, actual damages, statutory damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and compensatory damages. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1492.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. April 2011.

Defamation Lawyer Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


BERKTREE, LLC and CHASE E. BEACH v. EGENERAL MEDICAL, INC. and PAUL MATTERA
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (WESTERN DIVISION)
5:11-CV-00136
FILED: 03/25/2011

This type of an attack against a business involves not only disparaging and defaming a competitor but also interweaving the name of the competitor into the website so that search engine results present the attack site when the competitor is searched. The benefit is that it not only defames the competitor but provides direct commercial benefit to the attacker. When you see a site such as this targeting your business the first action is to have the site taken off the web. Notify the domain name registrar, web host, transaction processor, search engines and any advertisers of the trademark infringement and attack the existence and availability of the website. If it comes down you may not have to spend a small fortune on litigating the case.

Berktree is a successful e-commerce business selling consumer products online. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants undertook extensive defamatory attacks ranging from filing false police reports alleging embezzlement and causing the founder’s arrest to filing a frivolous lawsuit. In addition, the Defendants acquired the domain name of the founder of Berktree and used the domain name to launch a website that defamed the Plaintiffs. For instance, the website claimed that the Plaintiffs were offering “unparalleled uneducated services and competitive high prices….” The website allegedly contains extensive additional defamatory and false claims. There is a “donate” button that is allegedly directed to the PayPal account of the Defendants and those visiting the site are asked to donate in an effort to help fight against database theft. The Plaintiff claims that there has been no such theft.

The lawsuit alleges unfair competition, misappropriation of a person’s name, defamation, and malicious prosecution. The Plaintiffs request that the Court award transfer of the infringing URL, permanent injunctive relief to prevent further defamation, compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and other such relief the Court deems just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1484.


DENYSE MERULLO v. RICHARD L. GREER
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (CONCORD)
1:11-CV-00116
FILED: 03/14/2011

This dispute has arisen simply because it appears that the Defendant purchased software and expected to have sole and exclusive use of the software but it had already been licensed before the sale to the Plaintiff. This is a business dispute that needs to be worked out among all of the parties based upon the contract of sale and the license agreements. Make sure you treat business disputes like business disputes and don’t start publishing attacks and potentially defamatory comments about third parties. Using a DMCA takedown notice, claiming that someone is a “pirate”, or publication of other types of comments or action can be considered defamation, particularly when it may be that the Defendant does not really own, on an exclusive basis, the right to use the software.

The Plaintiff operates a traffic exchange website used by Internet businesses to increase the number of visitors to their site. The Plaintiff licensed certain software she was using in her business and the Defendant also licensed that same software for use in his business. The problem arises because the Defendant apparently thought the license was a complete sale of all rights to use the software and started publicizing that the Plaintiff was illegally using a copy of the software the Defendant now perceived it owned outright. The Defendant then filed complaints with various third parties claiming copyright infringement and posted “security alerts” on the Internet according to the allegations of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment against the Defendant’s claims of copyright infringement and the right to use the software in question and alleges against the Defendant false designation or origin, unfair competition and false advertising, defamation, violation of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act, and tortious interference with contractual relations. The lawsuit requests injunctive relief against the Defendants, compensatory damages, punitive damages, treble damages, reimbursement of Plaintiff’s cost and fees, interest on compensatory damages, and any other relief the Court deems just. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1485.

CENOPLEX, INC. v. DAVID SHOR
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
1:11-CV-00159
FILED: 03/1/2011

The Plaintiff in this case was a start-up that initially raised a half million dollars then subsequently raised $2 million in its second round of financing. Quality leadership is critical at the early stage. Recognize your start-up for what it is – a very high-risk business with an unusually high-rate of failure. Seven out of ten venture-backed businesses fail. Most high-quality executives don’t want a failure on their résumé. It is therefore very hard to recruit top executives at an early stage of your business. Be very careful in your interviewing and hiring process to make sure that you don’t have this kind of problem when an executive doesn’t live up to your expectations.

The Plaintiff terminated employment of the Defendant because of alleged incompetence, disruption of operations, and unprofessional behavior. The Defendant then created the website “screwedbycenoplex.com” which contained false and defamatory accusations and now is infringing the Plaintiff’s registered federal trademarks, counterfeiting the Plaintiff’s registered federal trademarks, falsely promoting an affiliation with the Plaintiff, and disclosing “insider information” about the Plaintiff’s technology, all allegedly for the purpose of perpetrating a smear campaign that threatens to compromise investor confidence in the Plaintiff, divert management attention, and impair the brand value of the business. This alleged smear campaign included not only launching the “screwed by” website but also launching a confusing similar website to that of the Plaintiff, the creation of a Facebook profile page, the creation of a LinkedIn profile page, the purchase of the Plaintiff’s trademarked name to key ads and other social media actions.

The lawsuit alleges infringement of a federally registered mark, counterfeiting of a federally registered mark, statutory infringement of mark, misappropriation of confidential information and trade secrets, and violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act. Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an accounting of Defendant’s profits, compensatory damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief the Court deems proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1486.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. March 2011.

Defamation Lawyer Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


ZIMMER INC v. ARI KRESCH, ET AL.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA (SOUTH BEND)
3:11-CV-00063
FILED: 2/16/2011

The bottom line is that when you put content out on the web you need to make sure that it is factually supported and correct, particularly when you are criticizing a product or service and attempting to generate business from the criticism. Who knows whether the claims made on these law firm websites are true? But when a Plaintiff sues law firms it is a strong indication that businesses are scrutinizing content being carried on the web much more carefully and policing allegedly deceptive content more aggressively.

Zimmer, Inc. develops, manufactures and sells artificial knees, hips, and other orthopedic devices. The Defendants are a law firm with websites that are focused on alleged defects in the Plaintiff’s products. Plaintiff claims that the content on the websites is false, misleading, and defamatory.

The lawsuit alleges defamation, tortious interference with business relationships, false advertising and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, product disparagement and unfair competition under common law, cybersquatting, trademark infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin, and common law unfair competition and trademark infringement. Zimmer requests injunctive relief, an order requiring Defendants to place corrective advertising with an apology, an order requiring Defendants to notify recipients of the defamatory material of their unlawful conduct, an accounting and disgorgement of profits, actual damages, treble damages, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs and expenses. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1476.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. February 2011.

Defamation Lawyer Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


ALPHAMETRIX GROUP, LLC v. ROLAND CLARKE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)
1:11-CV-00480
FILED: 1/21/2011

If you have any concerns about a former employee disparaging or defaming your company, you can always negotiate a “non-disparagement” provision in the contract of termination. The most effective provisions carry with them a “liquidated damages” clause that requires the payment of a very significant amount of money if disparagement or defamation occurs, irrespective of the damages incurred by your company. This often times will prevent the former employee from undertaking a campaign of disparagement.

Alphametrix is a financial services firm headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Defendant Rolan Clarke is a former employee, who was terminated from his position as director of technology in April, 2010. Plaintiff alleges that Clarke has used his technical know how to engage in a cyber campaign of defamation, Internet harassment, and other unlawful misconduct despite having signed a non-disparagement agreement at the time of termination.

Alphametrix Group claims cybersquatting, trademark infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin, deceptive trade practices, copyright infringement, breach of contract, commercial defamation, and commercial disparagement. They request injunctive relief along with cancellation or transfer of the infringing domain name, actual damages, punitive damages, treble damages, statutory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1472.



CATALENT PHARMA SOLUTIONS, INC. v. VARIOUS JOHN DOES, VARIOUS JANE DOES, and XYZ COMPANY
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)
1:11-CV-00218
FILED: 1/12/2011

It’s interesting that this lawsuit was only brought based upon trademark infringement when trade libel and defamation could have been included. Also, some states have now passed laws that prohibit “impersonation” and provide for some civil causes of action. At any rate, if this is happening to you there are many legal grounds upon which to pursue the perpetrators.

Catalent Pharma Solutions is a Delaware corporation and leading provider of advanced technologies in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and consumer health industries. Presently unknown Defendants are alleged to have carried on a pattern of disparagement, defamation, libel and harassment about the Plaintiff including impersonating Plaintiff’s employees and sending out email messages with pornography attached.

Catalent Pharma Solutions claims trademark infringement against the Defendants and requests injunctive relief, damages in an amount to be determined, costs, attorneys’ fees and other such relief the Court deems just. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1473.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. January 2011.

Defamation Lawyer Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


SOLUTIONS FROM SCIENCE, INC. v. EMERGENCY SEEDS, INC.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)
1:10-CV-08077
FILED: 12/20/2010

It’s interesting that if you go out as a company and publish fake reviews that are positive about your company this “astroturfing” can get you in serious trouble with state attorneys’ general or the Federal Trade Commission. If you go out and attack a competitor through the publication of false comments, the federal and state authorities don’t get involved at all to help the party under attack. Maybe things will change, but at this point the only recourse is the private legal process of having your lawyer force the publisher and defamer to stop.
The Plaintiff offers seeds that it alleges produce more nutritionally dense fruits and vegetables and this product is attractive to self- reliant consumers who want to secure an inexpensive and sustainable way to provide fresh, healthy food for their families year round. Once again Defendant ESI is apparently a competitor. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is manufacturing and then posting fake “consumer reviews” on websites it controls falsely criticizing the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff alleges trademark infringement, false designation of origin, false description and representation, false advertising, cybersquatting, trademark dilution, violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and product disparagement/trade libel. The prayer for relief includes requests for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an accounting of Defendant’s profits, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1463.


AMERICAN GRANBY, INC. v DAWN INDUSTRIES, INC.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (SYRACUSE)
5:10-CV-01523
FILED: 12/16/2010

Again, this is representative of an apparent increase in the willingness of competitors to directly criticize others in the marketplace. Before publishing any type of comparative advertising or comments, expressed or implied, about your competitor, get it cleared by your attorney.
American Granby is a leading distributor in the wholesale pump, pool and spa, turf irrigation and plumbing and heating markets. Defendant competes by selling certain products, including pipe and hose cutters, on its website. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has published on its website in the FAQ section that Plaintiff’s products “had serious problems with leaking” and are a “cheap knockoff” of its own products.

American Granby claims unfair competition, defamation, trade libel, interference with existing and prospective contracts, false advertising, deceptive business acts and practices, and unfair competition. The lawsuit requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, corrective advertising, a retraction of all false and misleading claims, actual damages, an accounting and award of Defendant’s profits, treble damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1464.


PRECISION IBC, INC. v. PCM CAPITAL, LLC, ET AL.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA (MOBILE)
1:10-CV-00682
FILED: 12/10/2010

It’s interesting to see a dramatic increase in the number of defamation and trade libel lawsuits filed in December. We are reviewing four major ones in this federal court report. Competitors are apparently becoming more aggressive in publishing criticism that is crossing the line into false, material factual misrepresentations.

The parties are in the business of selling and leasing intermediate bulk containers designed to store and transport hazardous and sensitive materials. The Defendants are alleged to have published on their website, and then online elsewhere, a “press release” in which the Defendants are alleged to falsely claim that the tanks used by the Plaintiff are of “lower quality” and have “serious quality issues”. The comments also included a suggestion that the tanks used by the Plaintiff did not comply with the United Nations/Department of Transportation specifications and could cause exposure to the consumer of “very costly legal liability”.

Defendants are accused of violating the Lanham Act and libel per se. The prayer for relief includes claims for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, a retraction statement issued by Defendants, an accounting and payment of Defendants’ profits, corrective advertising, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1465.


MICROBRIGHTFIELD, INC. v. STEREOLOGY RESOURCE CENTER, INC. and PETER R. MOUTON
DISTRICT OF VERMONT (BURLINGTON)
2:10-CV-00304
FILED: 12/9/2010

Note that many of theses lawsuits are not only against a corporation but also against an individual. The party who actually is responsible for coming up with the wording or placing the allegedly defamatory words on a website is often personally liable.
The parties sell competing stereology systems. These systems provide three dimensional interpretations of two dimensional images as applied to the light sciences industry. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant’s website contains extensive false statements, both express and implied, concerning the pricing, quality, features and capabilities of Plaintiff’s products.

Lawsuit counts include false and misleading advertising, trade libel, and common law unfair competition. Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, actual damages, treble damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1466.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. December 2010.

Defamation Lawyer Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


ART OF LIVING FOUNDATION v. DOES 1-10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (OAKLAND)
4:10-CV-05022
FILED: 11/9/2010

This is a John Doe lawsuit because the Plaintiff is not sure who is publishing the defamatory statements or controlling the attack blogs. The Plaintiff will subpoena the records from the webhost or website owner, get the IP address from the log files, issue a subpoena for the Internet service provider to identify who was using the IP address at the times specified, and determine the identity of the posters. Anonymity is not necessarily what you might think it is because most often tracking anonymous comments to the identity of the actual author is not difficult.
The Art of Living Foundation is an International educational and humanitarian organization based in Bangalore, India. Defendants are disgruntled former student-teachers and students of the Plaintiff who have created two blogs publishing extensive alleged false and defamatory statements.

Causes of action in the lawsuit include copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, defamation, and trade libel. Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, actual damages, treble damages, compensatory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1457.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. November 2010.

Defamation Lawyer Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


SPIEGEL & UTRERA, P.A. v. FRED REIS
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (MIAMI)
1:10-CV-23890
FILED: 10/27/2010

Customer complaints published on the Internet can obviously be very damaging. Make sure you have Google alerts set up for your business name, names of key executives with your company, and your product or service names, so that you can stay on top of any complaints or disparaging remarks published about you or your products.

Plaintiff is a law firm in Florida. Defendant is a disgruntled client of the law firm who claims that the law firm ripped him off.

The lawsuit claims false description of Plaintiff’s services and activities and libel. The prayer for relief requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, punitive damages, exemplary damages, interest, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1451.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. September 2010.

Defamation Lawyer Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


APX ALARM SECURITY SOLUTIONS v. NICK LAWRENCE and 911
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF UTAH
2:10- CV-00734
FILED: 8/03/2010

Attacking a competitor can be a very successful tactic. If you are going to take this approach, be absolutely certain that every factual claim, and every implied factual claim you are making, is 100% accurate. Under the defamation laws, even statements that appear to be mere opinions can provide a basis for a defamation lawsuit.
APX is in the business of monitoring, distributing, and selling alarm systems and services to residential customers. The Defendant is an individual providing competing alarm monitoring services in Berkeley, CA. Defendant Lawrence lists a number of disparaging “facts” about the Plaintiff on its website and on its Facebook page which Plaintiff claims are false.

Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment against the Defendant and claims defamation, trade libel, conversion, negligence, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and intentional interference with economic relations. Relief requested includes injunctive relief, actual damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1447.